And yes, the creation of the vast majority of mainstream porn for sale involves the direct exploitation of damaged people. Its not ok and it never will be.
OK, I have to disagree with your comment that the vast majority is direct exploitation of damaged people - but there we are just arguing the scale of the problem. I would not deny that it hasn't been done and is still being done, but I do not think the "vast majority" is guilty of it.
I agree completely that it is unacceptable when it does occur, but is that not an argument for better regulation and oversight?
If you disagree, then you don't know anything about the porn industry. Sorry, but this isn't controversial.
The Cat on
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited November 2008
I don't disagree.
But at the same time I don't consider this a "tricky enough" topic that it gets away without source citing. Cough em up guys.
(And it doesn't have to be a controversial statement to require sources. If you are stating a fact and someone disagrees you just deliver your sources and the argument is over.)
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
And yes, the creation of the vast majority of mainstream porn for sale involves the direct exploitation of damaged people. Its not ok and it never will be.
OK, I have to disagree with your comment that the vast majority is direct exploitation of damaged people - but there we are just arguing the scale of the problem. I would not deny that it hasn't been done and is still being done, but I do not think the "vast majority" is guilty of it.
I agree completely that it is unacceptable when it does occur, but is that not an argument for better regulation and oversight?
The story of any pornstar always involves some degree of parental neglect, misguided rebellion, or more commonly just abuse. It goes with the territory.
Jenna Jameson was raped twice. I mean I know that's not a statistic, but she was for a time pretty much the most successful pornstar ever, so it should tell you something about that industry.
If you disagree, then you don't know anything about the porn industry. Sorry, but this isn't controversial.
It is true I have never done an in-depth research topic on it, I am just a consumer.
Am I to assume that this is an argument from authority? In which case can I see what credentials you posses to declare yourself to have greater understanding of the subject than me?
Otherwise, sources. If you have them I will happily support your statements. I am not here to be argumentative or devisive (sp?). But as an engineer I get annoyed by people pulling number out of thin air and presenting them as fact (that sort of thing causes me no end of overtime).
Like I said - I am not claiming it doesn't happen, I just doubt that 99% is a valid number, and exactly when do we reach a 'vast' majority? 51%, 60%, 75%, 95%?
I really should have been clearer with my terms. I have a great deal of sympathy with the arguments you’re espousing, and think it is a valid complaint you can level, the vast majority of mainstream porn makes me uncomfortable to say the least, especially given the conditions of its creation. I think it would be a perfectly reasonable complaint that you found your partner watching rape/misogynistic/etc porn uncomfortable. However, there is stuff out there which is far less questionable (the aforementioned literotica or amateur video).
Leitner on
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited November 2008
You are a better scientist than that ELM.
I'm trying to defuse what would probably explode, I just want everybody to pull out the facts first.
I don't have an opinion on this, just pull out the sources.
edit: Thanks cat, that's a start at least.
edit2: I haven't seen anything cat. I'm not arguing against you in any way. But if you feel strongly enough about this, then rather than pulling out authority calls that wont work you should just give people the facts so they know. Which is why I'm doing this, you should just give the facts.
It's easier that way. I'd give them myself but I don't know where to begin you are the one with the education.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Here's another article. If you can judge your life by the enemies you make, I think she did ok.
edit: and come on, you've seen Boogie Nights, right? Its fiction, but it wasn't a complete fantasy, the authors didn't have to look far for inspiration. The movie serves pretty well as a shorthand summary of what the industry is like.
I really should have been clearer with my terms. I have a great deal of sympathy with the arguments you’re espousing, and think it is a valid complaint you can level, the vast majority of mainstream porn makes me uncomfortable to say the least, especially given the conditions of its creation. I think it would be a perfectly reasonable complaint that you found your partner watching rape/misogynistic/etc porn uncomfortable. However, there is stuff out there which is far less questionable (the aforementioned literotica or amateur video).
But even that involves the exploitation of the individual from things that I have read.
Even when it comes to people that just stand nude in front of a camera - they are manipulated.
Have a cry. If you want to try and distract us from the issue with a quibble about my choice of rhetoric, expect a similarly low blow in return.
You engineers are far too literal :roll:
I'll have a look at the website and get back to you when I have read a bit there
You do that. And no more links tonight, I'm just about fed up with googling 'porn stars and abuse' and getting search results that largely comprise... well, porn stars being abused, and people fantasising about abusing them. Its a bit depressing.
The Cat on
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
I was considering video/photo porn, because that seems to be the focus of the OP. I don't think anyone has a problem with ficitonal stuff, although I personally draw the line at even fiction if consent issues are apparent in the story, or relatives/children/animals are involved. And yes, the creation of the vast majority of mainstream porn for sale involves the direct exploitation of damaged people. Its not ok and it never will be.
Most written non-consent porn I've read is meant to appeal to women with rape fantasies, which are extremely common and much more about playing with power and control than actual sexual assault. Ditto with incest porn and several varieties of underage porn, especially including things like shotacon. Do you personally find it over the line when an (of-age and consenting) couple roleplays a rape scenario, or indulges in age-play, or puts a bridle and saddle on? Kinks are weird, but I don't think material meant to appeal to kinks is meant to promote real-life sexual assault, incest, molestation, bestiality, etc., nor do the consumers of such tend to take it that way.
And I have an issue with "it never will be." What is inherently exploitative about taking pictures and/or video of people doing sexual things? It's currently exploitative at least in part because cultural mores ensure that non-damaged people rarely decide to act for porn, but I wouldn't say that could never change.
I was considering video/photo porn, because that seems to be the focus of the OP. I don't think anyone has a problem with ficitonal stuff, although I personally draw the line at even fiction if consent issues are apparent in the story, or relatives/children/animals are involved. And yes, the creation of the vast majority of mainstream porn for sale involves the direct exploitation of damaged people. Its not ok and it never will be.
Most written non-consent porn I've read is meant to appeal to women with rape fantasies, which are extremely common and much more about playing with power and control than actual sexual assault. Ditto with incest porn and several varieties of underage porn, especially including things like shotacon. Do you personally find it over the line when an (of-age and consenting) couple roleplays a rape scenario, or indulges in age-play, or puts a bridle and saddle on? Kinks are weird, but I don't think material meant to appeal to kinks is meant to promote real-life sexual assault, incest, molestation, bestiality, etc., nor do the consumers of such tend to take it that way.
I'm not so confident that I'm willing to make that call about any individual work, and plus I find all those things very-not-a-turn-on, so I just stick with avoidance.
And I have an issue with "it never will be." What is inherently exploitative about taking pictures and/or video of people doing sexual things? It's currently exploitative at least in part because cultural mores ensure that non-damaged people rarely decide to act for porn, but I wouldn't say that could never change.
You're misreading. I'm saying that the mainstream porn industry (and hell, most of the sex industry full stop) is incredibly fucked up and damaging, and its not ok to make excuses for that because some group somewhere are trying to do the right thing. For the mainstream porn industry to be 'ok', it would have to change almost beyond recognition.
I was considering video/photo porn, because that seems to be the focus of the OP. I don't think anyone has a problem with ficitonal stuff, although I personally draw the line at even fiction if consent issues are apparent in the story, or relatives/children/animals are involved. And yes, the creation of the vast majority of mainstream porn for sale involves the direct exploitation of damaged people. Its not ok and it never will be.
Most written non-consent porn I've read is meant to appeal to women with rape fantasies, which are extremely common and much more about playing with power and control than actual sexual assault. Ditto with incest porn and several varieties of underage porn, especially including things like shotacon. Do you personally find it over the line when an (of-age and consenting) couple roleplays a rape scenario, or indulges in age-play, or puts a bridle and saddle on? Kinks are weird, but I don't think material meant to appeal to kinks is meant to promote real-life sexual assault, incest, molestation, bestiality, etc., nor do the consumers of such tend to take it that way.
I'm not so confident that I'm willing to make that call about any individual work, and plus I find all those things very-not-a-turn-on, so I just stick with avoidance.
Ah, okay. In general, I've found that kink communities are much better than mainstream society about talking about issues of consent, making sure people realize the boundaries between fantasy and reality, that sort of thing. There's also a good effort to differentiate between "stuff that I find gross and icky and doesn't turn me on" and "stuff that I find immoral" that I'd be happy to see spread out to the mainstream; we might have less homophobia that way.
As per my example earlier: Transformers porn just confuses me. Wait, they're robots... having sex? How does that work? It's not my kink, I don't get it, I never will get it, but I'm not going to say that it's wrong. Ditto with furries, or sissies, or feeders, or whatever. There's an acronym that I wish was shorter since it's very useful: YKINMK, Your Kink Is Not My Kink, usually with "ATOK," And That's OK.
And I have an issue with "it never will be." What is inherently exploitative about taking pictures and/or video of people doing sexual things? It's currently exploitative at least in part because cultural mores ensure that non-damaged people rarely decide to act for porn, but I wouldn't say that could never change.
You're misreading. I'm saying that the mainstream porn industry (and hell, most of the sex industry full stop) is incredibly fucked up and damaging, and its not ok to make excuses for that because some group somewhere are trying to do the right thing. For the mainstream porn industry to be 'ok', it would have to change almost beyond recognition.
And that's where we differ. Yes, porn specifically and the sex industry in general desperately need change, both in their practices and in society's attitude toward those involved. I think those changes are possible, though, and I think, in some ways, society is ever-so-slowly moving to make those changes.
Moreso, I think it's possible to make sure you consume ethically-created porn.
Dare I say that the assumption that you need porn to wank it (and VC isn't the only one who failed to question that until just now) is part of the problem I'm describing?
Oh I think I do dare
I don't need to question it unless someone establishes that porn is natively harmful. It goes like this; you're allowed to do stuff until it causes harm. Not like this; you're not allowed to do stuff unless it's necessary. The necessity or lack of necessity of porn is irrelevant to my argument.
If you think that the creation of 99% of porn doesn't cause harm you're out of your mind. And no, the other 1% doesn't make that irrelevant.
Nuh-uh, if you think that the creation of 99% of porn does cause harm you're out of your mind. Looks like now someone needs to substantiate claims. And since what I said above doesn't need substantiation, and you're the one making the claim, it's on you. I don't need to question it unless someone establishes that porn is natively harmful. It goes like this; you're allowed to do stuff until it causes harm. Not like this; you're not allowed to do stuff unless it's necessary. The necessity or lack of necessity of porn is irrelevant to my argument.
If you think that the creation of 99% of porn doesn't cause harm you're out of your mind. And no, the other 1% doesn't make that irrelevant.
Nuh-uh, if you think that the creation of 99% of porn does cause harm you're out of your mind. Looks like now someone needs to substantiate claims.
I think cat and I already ran down this road, I'm still reading through the links supplied though, so until I've finished reading I'm keeping out of the thread.
If you think that the creation of 99% of porn doesn't cause harm you're out of your mind. And no, the other 1% doesn't make that irrelevant.
Nuh-uh, if you think that the creation of 99% of porn does cause harm you're out of your mind. Looks like now someone needs to substantiate claims.
I think cat and I already ran down this road, I'm still reading through the links supplied though, so until I've finished reading I'm keeping out of the thread.
Not really, she failed to establish any percent, let alone 99%.
Edit: and that killinger line didn't really go with what he was saying, he was saying the unreasonable and reasonable sides but he was still seemingly arguing for the fact that it was an unreasonable request to make.
I've only ever been arguing that it can be unreasonable, and that the person making the request is just as capable of being the jackass as the person whacking it to internet-titties. If you decided to extrapolate a bunch of stuff from that that wasn't there so that you could get offended, that's not really my problem.
How am I offended? I'm not offended, I don't actually care in the slightest. If you constantly talk random gobbldygook and then never answer half of whats asked then don't expect people to not question the crap spewing forth.
Edit: and that killinger line didn't really go with what he was saying, he was saying the unreasonable and reasonable sides but he was still seemingly arguing for the fact that it was an unreasonable request to make.
I've only ever been arguing that it can be unreasonable, and that the person making the request is just as capable of being the jackass as the person whacking it to internet-titties. If you decided to extrapolate a bunch of stuff from that that wasn't there so that you could get offended, that's not really my problem.
How am I offended? I'm not offended, I don't actually care in the slightest. If you constantly talk random gobbldygook and then never answer half of whats asked then don't expect people to not question the crap spewing forth.
Perhaps the posts would be less confusing if you cease injecting extra crap into them that isn't there.
If you think that the creation of 99% of porn doesn't cause harm you're out of your mind. And no, the other 1% doesn't make that irrelevant.
Nuh-uh, if you think that the creation of 99% of porn does cause harm you're out of your mind. Looks like now someone needs to substantiate claims.
I think cat and I already ran down this road, I'm still reading through the links supplied though, so until I've finished reading I'm keeping out of the thread.
Not really, she failed to establish any percent, let alone 99%.
It's hard to get good numbers for this, because everyone watches porn, and no one wants to believe or admit that they are actually supporting an industry that is brutally exploitative. This includes researchers, people interpreting or publishing the research, and those doing the production of porn themselves.
I'm not sure what number I would even guess. On the one hand, there are many "successful" porn stars who do interviews and seem healthy and un-damaged enough; on the other hand, I have glimpsed some of the porn these people have done, and it was enough to make me feel sick. And I'm capable of handling some pretty gross stuff.
like my penis. ohohohohoho.
I would suggest that a very significant portion of pornography is harmful and exploitative. I'm going to do some research when I'm not at work, but it's not going to be a low number.
I would also suggest that the very idea of commercialized voyeurism, of commodified objectification, might be in itself problematic, but I'm not sure where I stand on that.
If you think that the creation of 99% of porn doesn't cause harm you're out of your mind. And no, the other 1% doesn't make that irrelevant.
Nuh-uh, if you think that the creation of 99% of porn does cause harm you're out of your mind. Looks like now someone needs to substantiate claims.
I think cat and I already ran down this road, I'm still reading through the links supplied though, so until I've finished reading I'm keeping out of the thread.
Not really, she failed to establish any percent, let alone 99%.
It's hard to get good numbers for this, because everyone watches porn, and no one wants to believe or admit that they are actually supporting an industry that is brutally exploitative. This includes researchers, people interpreting or publishing the research, and those doing the production of porn themselves.
I'm not sure what number I would even guess. On the one hand, there are many "successful" porn stars who do interviews and seem healthy and un-damaged enough; on the other hand, I have glimpsed some of the porn these people have done, and it was enough to make me feel sick. And I'm capable of handling some pretty gross stuff.
like my penis. ohohohohoho.
I would suggest that a very significant portion of pornography is harmful and exploitative. I'm going to do some research when I'm not at work, but it's not going to be a low number.
I would also suggest that the very idea of commercialized voyeurism, of commodified objectification, might be in itself problematic, but I'm not sure where I stand on that.
I think that the bigger part of how it would be difficult to find any numbers demonstrating the claim is the internet. There are easily thousands of porn production companies out there, most of which don't even produce any hardcore because the internet makes entry-cost into the industry pretty minuscule. Thing is, it's way more expensive to get girls to take six dicks at once than just one, and way more expensive to get just one than none, and full frontal more expensive than just topless more expensive than covered. Hence most of them not doing any hardcore.
Women that do porn are almost always going to be damaged goods (and men for that matter). I'd probably throw out a completely unscientific guess of like 90%.
I'm not vilifying porn though, it's not doing the damage - you just need to have some serious issues in order to actually do it in the first place. But everyone in the industry is a consenting adult, even if they are more than likely self destructive.
Women that do porn are almost always going to be damaged goods (and men for that matter). I'd probably throw out a completely unscientific guess of like 90%.
I'm not vilifying porn though, it's not doing the damage - you just need to have some serious issues in order to actually do it in the first place. But everyone in the industry is a consenting adult, even if they are more than likely self destructive.
Why?
Trowizilla on
0
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
I think that the bigger part of how it would be difficult to find any numbers demonstrating the claim is the internet. There are easily thousands of porn production companies out there, most of which don't even produce any hardcore because the internet makes entry-cost into the industry pretty minuscule. Thing is, it's way more expensive to get girls to take six dicks at once than just one, and way more expensive to get just one than none, and full frontal more expensive than just topless more expensive than covered. Hence most of them not doing any hardcore.
I would welcome any evidence you may have to back this up. Costs become surprisingly flexible when coke and ecstasy are valid currencies. I would also welcome numbers demonstrating the obvious conclusion of your logic - that most porn isn't hardcore. That would surprise me immensely. Even a cursory glance at what's available seems to indicate that softcore is an increasingly boutique interest on the internet.
I think that the bigger part of how it would be difficult to find any numbers demonstrating the claim is the internet. There are easily thousands of porn production companies out there, most of which don't even produce any hardcore because the internet makes entry-cost into the industry pretty minuscule. Thing is, it's way more expensive to get girls to take six dicks at once than just one, and way more expensive to get just one than none, and full frontal more expensive than just topless more expensive than covered. Hence most of them not doing any hardcore.
I would welcome any evidence you may have to back this up. Costs become surprisingly flexible when coke and ecstasy are valid currencies. I would also welcome numbers demonstrating the obvious conclusion of your logic - that most porn isn't hardcore. That would surprise me immensely. Even a cursory glance at what's available seems to indicate that softcore is an increasingly boutique interest on the internet.
He's probably using the redefined version of hardcore, which is basically anything past 1 on 1. Softcore is some stupid bullshit.
I think that the bigger part of how it would be difficult to find any numbers demonstrating the claim is the internet. There are easily thousands of porn production companies out there, most of which don't even produce any hardcore because the internet makes entry-cost into the industry pretty minuscule. Thing is, it's way more expensive to get girls to take six dicks at once than just one, and way more expensive to get just one than none, and full frontal more expensive than just topless more expensive than covered. Hence most of them not doing any hardcore.
I would welcome any evidence you may have to back this up. Costs become surprisingly flexible when coke and ecstasy are valid currencies. I would also welcome numbers demonstrating the obvious conclusion of your logic - that most porn isn't hardcore. That would surprise me immensely. Even a cursory glance at what's available seems to indicate that softcore is an increasingly boutique interest on the internet.
*shrug* It might be, but it wouldn't make much sense unless a lot of people are getting away with felonies, in which case law enforcement should probably do something about that. From The Cat's link, $2000 a day for hardcore? That's quite a bit to pay someone to be in a movie you can't really even afford a real camera and light to shoot properly.
Women that do porn are almost always going to be damaged goods (and men for that matter). I'd probably throw out a completely unscientific guess of like 90%.
I'm not vilifying porn though, it's not doing the damage - you just need to have some serious issues in order to actually do it in the first place. But everyone in the industry is a consenting adult, even if they are more than likely self destructive.
I think doing a six-man gang bang does damage you, both physically and mentally.
But I think that you're right in a way, because you have to be more damaged to consent to that "performance" in the first place.
Of course, how often are the women consenting, how often are they not?
fairly often? it's frankly a little silly to assume everybody involved in porn is damaged - exhibitionist tendencies are surprisingly common, and it's not hard to imagine someone who gets turned on by the thought of people watching them have sex.
there's basically no such thing as a normal sex drive, because sexuality isn't mathematically quantifiable, so to assume that wanting to have a threesome and have people pay to watch it automatically makes the participants mentally deranged perverts is pretty narrow-minded.
now, i'm not saying that there isn't a whole lot of exploitation and trauma that's involved with some people making pornography, but some people actually want to do it.
i'm going to be a little silly and link a sex educator's column as my source of information.
Women that do porn are almost always going to be damaged goods (and men for that matter). I'd probably throw out a completely unscientific guess of like 90%.
I'm not vilifying porn though, it's not doing the damage - you just need to have some serious issues in order to actually do it in the first place. But everyone in the industry is a consenting adult, even if they are more than likely self destructive.
I think doing a six-man gang bang does damage you, both physically and mentally.
But I think that you're right in a way, because you have to be more damaged to consent to that "performance" in the first place.
Of course, how often are the women consenting, how often are they not?
...you know, there are plenty of women who genuinely enjoy group sex and would probably be upset to know that they're supposed to be damaged. News flash: women frequently like having sex. Women frequently like having kinky sex.
Do you consider a man "damaged" if he consents to having sex with six women?
Women that do porn are almost always going to be damaged goods (and men for that matter). I'd probably throw out a completely unscientific guess of like 90%.
I'm not vilifying porn though, it's not doing the damage - you just need to have some serious issues in order to actually do it in the first place. But everyone in the industry is a consenting adult, even if they are more than likely self destructive.
I think doing a six-man gang bang does damage you, both physically and mentally.
But I think that you're right in a way, because you have to be more damaged to consent to that "performance" in the first place.
Of course, how often are the women consenting, how often are they not?
Oh sure, it absolutely brings you further down the road to the black hole of self loathing. But the absolute key part of this whole dynamic of self-hate and addiction that I'm sure a very significant part of the porn industry finds themselves in is responsibility. Nobody can reverse that process except for that person, so saying that porn is primarily to blame is foolish, it's simply a tool.
I think doing a six-man gang bang does damage you, both physically and mentally.
While in practice I imagine this is true, it's still a matter of the people involved and the way they do things.
Unfortunately, because of our society's views on how men should behave, they tend to be pretty damned nasty in those films. Hetero porn isn't the only kind though.
Women that do porn are almost always going to be damaged goods (and men for that matter). I'd probably throw out a completely unscientific guess of like 90%.
I'm not vilifying porn though, it's not doing the damage - you just need to have some serious issues in order to actually do it in the first place. But everyone in the industry is a consenting adult, even if they are more than likely self destructive.
I think doing a six-man gang bang does damage you, both physically and mentally.
But I think that you're right in a way, because you have to be more damaged to consent to that "performance" in the first place.
Of course, how often are the women consenting, how often are they not?
...you know, there are plenty of women who genuinely enjoy group sex and would probably be upset to know that they're supposed to be damaged. News flash: women frequently like having sex. Women frequently like having kinky sex.
Do you consider a man "damaged" if he consents to having sex with six women?
I'm not talking about "group sex," I'm talking about a gang bang. Have you seen a six-man gangbang video? That is not "group sex."
A woman does not have to be "damaged" to consent to group sex. She has to be damaged to consent to what you see in a porn gangbang video.
Women that do porn are almost always going to be damaged goods (and men for that matter). I'd probably throw out a completely unscientific guess of like 90%.
I'm not vilifying porn though, it's not doing the damage - you just need to have some serious issues in order to actually do it in the first place. But everyone in the industry is a consenting adult, even if they are more than likely self destructive.
I think doing a six-man gang bang does damage you, both physically and mentally.
But I think that you're right in a way, because you have to be more damaged to consent to that "performance" in the first place.
Of course, how often are the women consenting, how often are they not?
Oh sure, it absolutely brings you further down the road to the black hole of self loathing. But the absolute key part of this whole dynamic of self-hate and addiction that I'm sure a very significant part of the porn industry finds themselves in is responsibility. Nobody can reverse that process except for that person, so saying that porn is primarily to blame is foolish, it's simply a tool.
I would suggest that porn, even though it is no doubt often harmful to the performers, is far more a symptom of an underlying problem than a cause of it.
some of the actors in porn are healthy, informed and intelligent adults who legitimately enjoy what they are doing and are not psychologically damaged or anything.
some of the actors in porn are fucked up people, who have problems ranging from substance abuse to unresolved psychological complications resulting from sexual assault to depression and self-loathing to whatever.
these are facts, these two things.
what also has to be considered is that these two things are actually not, inherently, connected to the type of porn they are participating in.
an actress could do gangbang and bukkake DVDs every week and, outside of your personal feelings on that occupation, be a neurotypical and psychologically healthy young woman who enjoys her job, doesn't hate herself, and isn't riddled with diseases because her videos are produced with proper standards.
conversely, an actress could only be doing one on one, missionary and doggie style straight porn with no weird insertions or scat or anything, and still have herpes, bipolar disorder, and only be in the industry because she's mentally scarred from being raped by her dad.
the type of people making porn and the type of porn they produce shouldn't be intertwined like they are completely related, because while they sometimes are, they also are sometimes not.
and unless you can back up with hard numbers that either direction is true, there's no sense in arguing what is more "common" in that sense.
Women that do porn are almost always going to be damaged goods (and men for that matter). I'd probably throw out a completely unscientific guess of like 90%.
I'm not vilifying porn though, it's not doing the damage - you just need to have some serious issues in order to actually do it in the first place. But everyone in the industry is a consenting adult, even if they are more than likely self destructive.
I think doing a six-man gang bang does damage you, both physically and mentally.
But I think that you're right in a way, because you have to be more damaged to consent to that "performance" in the first place.
Of course, how often are the women consenting, how often are they not?
...you know, there are plenty of women who genuinely enjoy group sex and would probably be upset to know that they're supposed to be damaged. News flash: women frequently like having sex. Women frequently like having kinky sex.
Do you consider a man "damaged" if he consents to having sex with six women?
I'm not talking about "group sex," I'm talking about a gang bang. Have you seen a six-man gangbang video? That is not "group sex."
A woman does not have to be "damaged" to consent to group sex. She has to be damaged to consent to what you see in a porn gangbang video.
Women sometimes like rough sex too, by the way.
Would you consider a man damaged if he consented to have rough sex with 6 women with him in a submissive role?
Women that do porn are almost always going to be damaged goods (and men for that matter). I'd probably throw out a completely unscientific guess of like 90%.
I'm not vilifying porn though, it's not doing the damage - you just need to have some serious issues in order to actually do it in the first place. But everyone in the industry is a consenting adult, even if they are more than likely self destructive.
I think doing a six-man gang bang does damage you, both physically and mentally.
But I think that you're right in a way, because you have to be more damaged to consent to that "performance" in the first place.
Of course, how often are the women consenting, how often are they not?
...you know, there are plenty of women who genuinely enjoy group sex and would probably be upset to know that they're supposed to be damaged. News flash: women frequently like having sex. Women frequently like having kinky sex.
Do you consider a man "damaged" if he consents to having sex with six women?
I'm not talking about "group sex," I'm talking about a gang bang. Have you seen a six-man gangbang video? That is not "group sex."
A woman does not have to be "damaged" to consent to group sex. She has to be damaged to consent to what you see in a porn gangbang video.
Nope. I know some extraordinarily awesome and socially acceptable, non-damaged people who fantasize regularly about being gangbanged. You are imposing your own sexual beliefs on other people, which basically says that they're not allowed to decide for themselves what kind of sex they want to have.
Posts
But at the same time I don't consider this a "tricky enough" topic that it gets away without source citing. Cough em up guys.
(And it doesn't have to be a controversial statement to require sources. If you are stating a fact and someone disagrees you just deliver your sources and the argument is over.)
It is true I have never done an in-depth research topic on it, I am just a consumer.
Am I to assume that this is an argument from authority? In which case can I see what credentials you posses to declare yourself to have greater understanding of the subject than me?
Otherwise, sources. If you have them I will happily support your statements. I am not here to be argumentative or devisive (sp?). But as an engineer I get annoyed by people pulling number out of thin air and presenting them as fact (that sort of thing causes me no end of overtime).
Like I said - I am not claiming it doesn't happen, I just doubt that 99% is a valid number, and exactly when do we reach a 'vast' majority? 51%, 60%, 75%, 95%?
Here, this ought to get you started.
I'm trying to defuse what would probably explode, I just want everybody to pull out the facts first.
I don't have an opinion on this, just pull out the sources.
edit: Thanks cat, that's a start at least.
edit2: I haven't seen anything cat. I'm not arguing against you in any way. But if you feel strongly enough about this, then rather than pulling out authority calls that wont work you should just give people the facts so they know. Which is why I'm doing this, you should just give the facts.
It's easier that way. I'd give them myself but I don't know where to begin you are the one with the education.
edit: and come on, you've seen Boogie Nights, right? Its fiction, but it wasn't a complete fantasy, the authors didn't have to look far for inspiration. The movie serves pretty well as a shorthand summary of what the industry is like.
But even that involves the exploitation of the individual from things that I have read.
Even when it comes to people that just stand nude in front of a camera - they are manipulated.
Nice appeal to emotion.
Just the facts ma'am thank you.
I'll have a look at the website and get back to you when I have read a bit there
Have a cry. If you want to try and distract us from the issue with a quibble about my choice of rhetoric, expect a similarly low blow in return.
You engineers are far too literal :roll:
You do that. And no more links tonight, I'm just about fed up with googling 'porn stars and abuse' and getting search results that largely comprise... well, porn stars being abused, and people fantasising about abusing them. Its a bit depressing.
Obviously not an unbiased view but neithers the porn.
This woman is testifying against the sex industry.
http://fightforjustice.blogspot.com/2008/10/ex-porn-star-shelley-lubben-testifies.html
Pornstar + Abuse doesn't get you porn links, btw, so you guys can go look this stuff up on your own.
edit: Although I think I'm done too. This is pretty depressing.
Most written non-consent porn I've read is meant to appeal to women with rape fantasies, which are extremely common and much more about playing with power and control than actual sexual assault. Ditto with incest porn and several varieties of underage porn, especially including things like shotacon. Do you personally find it over the line when an (of-age and consenting) couple roleplays a rape scenario, or indulges in age-play, or puts a bridle and saddle on? Kinks are weird, but I don't think material meant to appeal to kinks is meant to promote real-life sexual assault, incest, molestation, bestiality, etc., nor do the consumers of such tend to take it that way.
And I have an issue with "it never will be." What is inherently exploitative about taking pictures and/or video of people doing sexual things? It's currently exploitative at least in part because cultural mores ensure that non-damaged people rarely decide to act for porn, but I wouldn't say that could never change.
You're misreading. I'm saying that the mainstream porn industry (and hell, most of the sex industry full stop) is incredibly fucked up and damaging, and its not ok to make excuses for that because some group somewhere are trying to do the right thing. For the mainstream porn industry to be 'ok', it would have to change almost beyond recognition.
Ah, okay. In general, I've found that kink communities are much better than mainstream society about talking about issues of consent, making sure people realize the boundaries between fantasy and reality, that sort of thing. There's also a good effort to differentiate between "stuff that I find gross and icky and doesn't turn me on" and "stuff that I find immoral" that I'd be happy to see spread out to the mainstream; we might have less homophobia that way.
As per my example earlier: Transformers porn just confuses me. Wait, they're robots... having sex? How does that work? It's not my kink, I don't get it, I never will get it, but I'm not going to say that it's wrong. Ditto with furries, or sissies, or feeders, or whatever. There's an acronym that I wish was shorter since it's very useful: YKINMK, Your Kink Is Not My Kink, usually with "ATOK," And That's OK.
And that's where we differ. Yes, porn specifically and the sex industry in general desperately need change, both in their practices and in society's attitude toward those involved. I think those changes are possible, though, and I think, in some ways, society is ever-so-slowly moving to make those changes.
Moreso, I think it's possible to make sure you consume ethically-created porn.
I don't think this has ever happened.
Ever.
Maybe we should have a celebration.
Nuh-uh, if you think that the creation of 99% of porn does cause harm you're out of your mind. Looks like now someone needs to substantiate claims. And since what I said above doesn't need substantiation, and you're the one making the claim, it's on you. I don't need to question it unless someone establishes that porn is natively harmful. It goes like this; you're allowed to do stuff until it causes harm. Not like this; you're not allowed to do stuff unless it's necessary. The necessity or lack of necessity of porn is irrelevant to my argument.
I think cat and I already ran down this road, I'm still reading through the links supplied though, so until I've finished reading I'm keeping out of the thread.
Not really, she failed to establish any percent, let alone 99%.
How am I offended? I'm not offended, I don't actually care in the slightest. If you constantly talk random gobbldygook and then never answer half of whats asked then don't expect people to not question the crap spewing forth.
Perhaps the posts would be less confusing if you cease injecting extra crap into them that isn't there.
It's hard to get good numbers for this, because everyone watches porn, and no one wants to believe or admit that they are actually supporting an industry that is brutally exploitative. This includes researchers, people interpreting or publishing the research, and those doing the production of porn themselves.
I'm not sure what number I would even guess. On the one hand, there are many "successful" porn stars who do interviews and seem healthy and un-damaged enough; on the other hand, I have glimpsed some of the porn these people have done, and it was enough to make me feel sick. And I'm capable of handling some pretty gross stuff.
I would suggest that a very significant portion of pornography is harmful and exploitative. I'm going to do some research when I'm not at work, but it's not going to be a low number.
I would also suggest that the very idea of commercialized voyeurism, of commodified objectification, might be in itself problematic, but I'm not sure where I stand on that.
I think that the bigger part of how it would be difficult to find any numbers demonstrating the claim is the internet. There are easily thousands of porn production companies out there, most of which don't even produce any hardcore because the internet makes entry-cost into the industry pretty minuscule. Thing is, it's way more expensive to get girls to take six dicks at once than just one, and way more expensive to get just one than none, and full frontal more expensive than just topless more expensive than covered. Hence most of them not doing any hardcore.
I'm not vilifying porn though, it's not doing the damage - you just need to have some serious issues in order to actually do it in the first place. But everyone in the industry is a consenting adult, even if they are more than likely self destructive.
Why?
I would welcome any evidence you may have to back this up. Costs become surprisingly flexible when coke and ecstasy are valid currencies. I would also welcome numbers demonstrating the obvious conclusion of your logic - that most porn isn't hardcore. That would surprise me immensely. Even a cursory glance at what's available seems to indicate that softcore is an increasingly boutique interest on the internet.
He's probably using the redefined version of hardcore, which is basically anything past 1 on 1. Softcore is some stupid bullshit.
*shrug* It might be, but it wouldn't make much sense unless a lot of people are getting away with felonies, in which case law enforcement should probably do something about that. From The Cat's link, $2000 a day for hardcore? That's quite a bit to pay someone to be in a movie you can't really even afford a real camera and light to shoot properly.
I think doing a six-man gang bang does damage you, both physically and mentally.
But I think that you're right in a way, because you have to be more damaged to consent to that "performance" in the first place.
Of course, how often are the women consenting, how often are they not?
there's basically no such thing as a normal sex drive, because sexuality isn't mathematically quantifiable, so to assume that wanting to have a threesome and have people pay to watch it automatically makes the participants mentally deranged perverts is pretty narrow-minded.
now, i'm not saying that there isn't a whole lot of exploitation and trauma that's involved with some people making pornography, but some people actually want to do it.
i'm going to be a little silly and link a sex educator's column as my source of information.
...you know, there are plenty of women who genuinely enjoy group sex and would probably be upset to know that they're supposed to be damaged. News flash: women frequently like having sex. Women frequently like having kinky sex.
Do you consider a man "damaged" if he consents to having sex with six women?
Oh sure, it absolutely brings you further down the road to the black hole of self loathing. But the absolute key part of this whole dynamic of self-hate and addiction that I'm sure a very significant part of the porn industry finds themselves in is responsibility. Nobody can reverse that process except for that person, so saying that porn is primarily to blame is foolish, it's simply a tool.
While in practice I imagine this is true, it's still a matter of the people involved and the way they do things.
Unfortunately, because of our society's views on how men should behave, they tend to be pretty damned nasty in those films. Hetero porn isn't the only kind though.
I'm not talking about "group sex," I'm talking about a gang bang. Have you seen a six-man gangbang video? That is not "group sex."
A woman does not have to be "damaged" to consent to group sex. She has to be damaged to consent to what you see in a porn gangbang video.
I would suggest that porn, even though it is no doubt often harmful to the performers, is far more a symptom of an underlying problem than a cause of it.
some of the actors in porn are fucked up people, who have problems ranging from substance abuse to unresolved psychological complications resulting from sexual assault to depression and self-loathing to whatever.
these are facts, these two things.
what also has to be considered is that these two things are actually not, inherently, connected to the type of porn they are participating in.
an actress could do gangbang and bukkake DVDs every week and, outside of your personal feelings on that occupation, be a neurotypical and psychologically healthy young woman who enjoys her job, doesn't hate herself, and isn't riddled with diseases because her videos are produced with proper standards.
conversely, an actress could only be doing one on one, missionary and doggie style straight porn with no weird insertions or scat or anything, and still have herpes, bipolar disorder, and only be in the industry because she's mentally scarred from being raped by her dad.
the type of people making porn and the type of porn they produce shouldn't be intertwined like they are completely related, because while they sometimes are, they also are sometimes not.
and unless you can back up with hard numbers that either direction is true, there's no sense in arguing what is more "common" in that sense.
Women sometimes like rough sex too, by the way.
Would you consider a man damaged if he consented to have rough sex with 6 women with him in a submissive role?
edit- RE: pony
Nope. I know some extraordinarily awesome and socially acceptable, non-damaged people who fantasize regularly about being gangbanged. You are imposing your own sexual beliefs on other people, which basically says that they're not allowed to decide for themselves what kind of sex they want to have.